• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Universe Shouldn't Exist, According to Physics...

Daisy

"Make sure of the more important things."
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
55,145
Reaction score
16,405
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
Could it be because of Divine Design? Yes...yes, I believe so!

At the moment of the Big Bang, the incredibly hot, impossibly dense mass known as the universe exploded to create every particle of matter that now surrounds us. Here's the problem: The way physicists understand it, the processes that formed those first particles should have produced an equal number of antiparticles, thereby annihilating all matter and effectively canceling everything out.

But they didn't. That has left physicists scratching their heads for decades trying to ask this most basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

Heads, You Win
Every particle in the Standard Model — the theory that describes the tiniest building blocks of the universe — has what's known as an antiparticle. Antiparticles have the exact same mass as their sister particles, but an opposite electric charge. For example, take a familiar particle like the electron, which has a negative charge. Its antiparticle is called the positron, and it has (you guessed it) a positive charge. Most antiparticles don't get their own names the way the positron does; the others just slap "anti-" in front to become the anti-neutron or the anti-muon. Still others are their own antiparticles: The photon doesn't have a charge, so the photon and the anti-photon are the same thing. Since particles are what make up matter, antiparticles are what make up antimatter.

When antimatter and matter interact, the result is catastrophic. The two particles annihilate each other, leaving behind a burst of pure energy. (In fact, the reaction is so pure and efficient that the writers of "Star Trek" decided to power the starship Enterprise with antimatter). But when a particle of matter is created the way it was at the beginning of the universe, it's always paired with its antimatter particle. Physicists have made this happen in the lab, in fact, and watched as particles and their antiparticles "oscillate" millions of times per second before they decay into another particle, one that's either matter or antimatter. At the beginning of the universe, this decay should have happened in a 50/50 ratio: half into matter, half into antimatter. And as you now know, 50 percent matter plus 50 percent antimatter equals zero percent universe.

CERN explains this using a coin analogy: A coin spinning on a table can land on heads or tails, but you can't call it heads or tails until it actually lands. If you spin a whole lot of coins, you should expect that roughly half will land on heads and half will land on tails. Same goes for the oscillating particles. But in the early universe, something changed the odds, and we don't know what that something was. It was as if a magic marble rolled along the table and made most of the coins land on heads.

Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back
So what was it? Why did we get more matter than antimatter? Why is matter even a thing? To find out, physicists are trying to find the tiniest, subtlest differences between matter and antimatter. If a difference exists, it could explain why one got a leg up on the other in the early universe.

In 2016, the Alpha experiment at CERN successfully created and measured antihydrogen, but didn't find any differences between it and regular-matter hydrogen. In early 2017, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider found that baryons — an umbrella term for the type of particles that make up the universe — seem to decay in a slightly different way than their antimatter counterparts. And in fall of 2017, physicists measured the "magnetic moment" of an anti-proton, only to find that it's identical to a regular proton. The search continues, and one of the most fundamental questions in the universe remains unanswered.

https://curiosity.com/topics/the-un..._medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_3191470
 
Could it be because of Divine Design? Yes...yes, I believe so!

At the moment of the Big Bang, the incredibly hot, impossibly dense mass known as the universe exploded to create every particle of matter that now surrounds us. Here's the problem: The way physicists understand it, the processes that formed those first particles should have produced an equal number of antiparticles, thereby annihilating all matter and effectively canceling everything out.

But they didn't. That has left physicists scratching their heads for decades trying to ask this most basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

Heads, You Win
Every particle in the Standard Model — the theory that describes the tiniest building blocks of the universe — has what's known as an antiparticle. Antiparticles have the exact same mass as their sister particles, but an opposite electric charge. For example, take a familiar particle like the electron, which has a negative charge. Its antiparticle is called the positron, and it has (you guessed it) a positive charge. Most antiparticles don't get their own names the way the positron does; the others just slap "anti-" in front to become the anti-neutron or the anti-muon. Still others are their own antiparticles: The photon doesn't have a charge, so the photon and the anti-photon are the same thing. Since particles are what make up matter, antiparticles are what make up antimatter.

When antimatter and matter interact, the result is catastrophic. The two particles annihilate each other, leaving behind a burst of pure energy. (In fact, the reaction is so pure and efficient that the writers of "Star Trek" decided to power the starship Enterprise with antimatter). But when a particle of matter is created the way it was at the beginning of the universe, it's always paired with its antimatter particle. Physicists have made this happen in the lab, in fact, and watched as particles and their antiparticles "oscillate" millions of times per second before they decay into another particle, one that's either matter or antimatter. At the beginning of the universe, this decay should have happened in a 50/50 ratio: half into matter, half into antimatter. And as you now know, 50 percent matter plus 50 percent antimatter equals zero percent universe.

CERN explains this using a coin analogy: A coin spinning on a table can land on heads or tails, but you can't call it heads or tails until it actually lands. If you spin a whole lot of coins, you should expect that roughly half will land on heads and half will land on tails. Same goes for the oscillating particles. But in the early universe, something changed the odds, and we don't know what that something was. It was as if a magic marble rolled along the table and made most of the coins land on heads.

Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back
So what was it? Why did we get more matter than antimatter? Why is matter even a thing? To find out, physicists are trying to find the tiniest, subtlest differences between matter and antimatter. If a difference exists, it could explain why one got a leg up on the other in the early universe.

In 2016, the Alpha experiment at CERN successfully created and measured antihydrogen, but didn't find any differences between it and regular-matter hydrogen. In early 2017, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider found that baryons — an umbrella term for the type of particles that make up the universe — seem to decay in a slightly different way than their antimatter counterparts. And in fall of 2017, physicists measured the "magnetic moment" of an anti-proton, only to find that it's identical to a regular proton. The search continues, and one of the most fundamental questions in the universe remains unanswered.

https://curiosity.com/topics/the-un..._medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_3191470

So scientists who managed to create particles that have only been created by the big bang billions of years ago still have a single question about the theory, therefor god must have intervened to allow it to happen?

Do you have any actual evidence? This logic is the exact same reason we thought god was responsible for lightning. Because we didn't have all the answers. It's the same reason we thought god (or gods) was responsible for droughts, floods, earth quakes, the stars, diseases, variety of species on earth etc. And in every case as science got better it explained them all. You're god has receded so far back in to the back ground that now his only fingerprint left is "he must have done one thing 14 billion years ago that we don't fully understand!" Silly doesn't begin to explain it.
 
So scientists who managed to create particles that have only been created by the big bang billions of years ago still have a single question about the theory, therefor god must have intervened to allow it to happen?

Do you have any actual evidence? This logic is the exact same reason we thought god was responsible for lightning. Because we didn't have all the answers. It's the same reason we thought god (or gods) was responsible for droughts, floods, earth quakes, the stars, diseases, variety of species on earth etc. And in every case as science got better it explained them all. You're god has receded so far back in to the back ground that now his only fingerprint left is "he must have done one thing 14 billion years ago that we don't fully understand!" Silly doesn't begin to explain it.

Do you? Evidently not, according to this article...
 
This separation, known as charge-parity (CP) violation, has been seen in hadronic subatomic particles (mesons), but the particles in question are baryons. Finding evidence of CP violation in these particles would allow scientists to calculate the amount of matter in the universe, and answer the question of why we have an asymmetric universe. After decades of effort, the scientists at CERN think they’ve done just that.

Using a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) detector, CERN scientists were able to witness CP violation in baryon particles. When smashed together, the matter (Λb0) and antimatter (Λb0-bar) versions of the particles decayed into different components with a significant difference in the quantities of the matter and antimatter baryons. According to the team’s report, “The LHCb data revealed a significant level of asymmetries in those CP-violation-sensitive quantities for the Λb0 and Λb0-bar baryon decays, with differences in some cases as large as 20 percent.”



https://futurism.com/4-groundbreaking-study-could-uncover-secrets-of-the-big-bang/
 
The problem with saying the universe was created by a "god" is that it requires the non-provable and non scientific explanation of "....then a miracle happened"

That is not science, that is fable.
 
The problem with saying the universe was created by a "god" is that it requires the non-provable and non scientific explanation of "....then a miracle happened"

That is not science, that is fable.

Kinda like science claiming it knows how the universe came about...:2razz:
 
Could it be because of Divine Design? Yes...yes, I believe so!

At the moment of the Big Bang, the incredibly hot, impossibly dense mass known as the universe exploded to create every particle of matter that now surrounds us. Here's the problem: The way physicists understand it, the processes that formed those first particles should have produced an equal number of antiparticles, thereby annihilating all matter and effectively canceling everything out.

But they didn't. That has left physicists scratching their heads for decades trying to ask this most basic question: Why does anything exist at all?

Heads, You Win
Every particle in the Standard Model — the theory that describes the tiniest building blocks of the universe — has what's known as an antiparticle. Antiparticles have the exact same mass as their sister particles, but an opposite electric charge. For example, take a familiar particle like the electron, which has a negative charge. Its antiparticle is called the positron, and it has (you guessed it) a positive charge. Most antiparticles don't get their own names the way the positron does; the others just slap "anti-" in front to become the anti-neutron or the anti-muon. Still others are their own antiparticles: The photon doesn't have a charge, so the photon and the anti-photon are the same thing. Since particles are what make up matter, antiparticles are what make up antimatter.

When antimatter and matter interact, the result is catastrophic. The two particles annihilate each other, leaving behind a burst of pure energy. (In fact, the reaction is so pure and efficient that the writers of "Star Trek" decided to power the starship Enterprise with antimatter). But when a particle of matter is created the way it was at the beginning of the universe, it's always paired with its antimatter particle. Physicists have made this happen in the lab, in fact, and watched as particles and their antiparticles "oscillate" millions of times per second before they decay into another particle, one that's either matter or antimatter. At the beginning of the universe, this decay should have happened in a 50/50 ratio: half into matter, half into antimatter. And as you now know, 50 percent matter plus 50 percent antimatter equals zero percent universe.

CERN explains this using a coin analogy: A coin spinning on a table can land on heads or tails, but you can't call it heads or tails until it actually lands. If you spin a whole lot of coins, you should expect that roughly half will land on heads and half will land on tails. Same goes for the oscillating particles. But in the early universe, something changed the odds, and we don't know what that something was. It was as if a magic marble rolled along the table and made most of the coins land on heads.

Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back
So what was it? Why did we get more matter than antimatter? Why is matter even a thing? To find out, physicists are trying to find the tiniest, subtlest differences between matter and antimatter. If a difference exists, it could explain why one got a leg up on the other in the early universe.

In 2016, the Alpha experiment at CERN successfully created and measured antihydrogen, but didn't find any differences between it and regular-matter hydrogen. In early 2017, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider found that baryons — an umbrella term for the type of particles that make up the universe — seem to decay in a slightly different way than their antimatter counterparts. And in fall of 2017, physicists measured the "magnetic moment" of an anti-proton, only to find that it's identical to a regular proton. The search continues, and one of the most fundamental questions in the universe remains unanswered.

https://curiosity.com/topics/the-un..._medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_3191470

And yet there isn't a single shred of credible evidence for 'divine design'.
 
Science doesn't claim that.

Tell me, what does the bible say about lies? Or wouldn't you know?

Well, you'd never know that from reading the posts here from devout science supporters...:roll:
 
Kinda like science claiming it knows how the universe came about...:2razz:

Science seeks to learn about how the universe came out, using scientific methods and established facts, not some farcical miracles to describe things.
 
So you tacitly admit you lied.

OK. That's progress, I guess.

No, it was a sarcastic comment to begin with...sorry your're not witty enough to pick up on it...:roll:
 
No, it was a sarcastic comment to begin with...sorry your're not witty enough to pick up on it...:roll:

Nope, it was a lie. Look up the meaning of the word sarcasm.
 
No, it was a sarcastic comment to begin with...sorry your're not witty enough to pick up on it...:roll:

So it was a lie.

Thanks for conceding that point.

Pro-tip: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the bible condemns lying and liars.
 
So it was a lie.

Thanks for conceding that point.

Pro-tip: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the bible condemns lying and liars.

Since when did believers take any notice of all the rules in the bible?
 
Do you? Evidently not, according to this article...

Can you tell me the claim that I have made without providing evidence?

You're devine design argument has been presented and there has not been one shred of evidence to go along with it.
 
Can you tell me the claim that I have made without providing evidence?

You're devine design argument has been presented and there has not been one shred of evidence to go along with it.

She ignored my post about the latest development in this field.
 
Back
Top Bottom